Judgment of April 3, 2009
VIII Article 5(1) (right to humane treatment)
Download 0.56 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- B) Compensation 1) Pecuniary damage
- 2) Non-pecuniary damage
- D) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition
- 2) Public acknowledgment of international responsibility
- 3) Construction of a monument and mounting of signs at the national park
- 5) Other reparations sought
- F) Method of compliance with ordered payments
VIII Article 5(1) (right to humane treatment)154 in relation to article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) of the American convention 124. The representatives requested the Court to find the State of Honduras responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof. They alleged that the children, mother and brothers of Blanca Jeannette Kawas “have suffered serious emotional harm [...] not only as a result of the premeditated murder of Jeannette, but also as a consequence of years of impunity” insofar as they “[h]ave witnessed the passivity and incompetence of the authorities in charge of the investigation and the delay in gaining access to justice as a result of the omissions and obstructive behavior of public officials seeking to hinder the proceedings.” In this connection, they stated that “[their] expectations of justice were thwarted.” The representatives mentioned that the relatives of Blanca Jeannette Kawas “are frightened by the presence of people in their community who might be involved in the murder, [which] causes additional stress [that] affects their integrity.” 125. In its Reports on admissibility and Merits, the Inter-American Commission did not consider that a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention had occurred and, therefore, did not allege the violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández in the application filed with the Court. 126. The State of Honduras disputed the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and requested the Court to consider the argument raised by the Inter-American Commission in its Report on the Merits, in which it found that “based on the analysis of the case, there are no other independent facts that may lead the Commission to conclude that Article 5 of the American Convention has been violated.” 127. In accordance with this Court’s precedents, the alleged victim, his or her next of kin or representatives may invoke different rights from those included in the application filed by the Commission, based on the facts alleged therein.155 In this case, the Court notes that given that the arguments raised by the representatives regarding the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández are based on facts contained in the application, the Court will proceed to consider such arguments. 128. On several occasions,156 the Inter-American Court has declared the violation of the right to humane treatment in respect of the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations or with respect to other persons having close relationships with such victims. In this connection, in the Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, the Court held that a violation of the right to mental and moral integrity of the direct next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations may be declared by applying a rebuttable presumption with regard to mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, husbands and wives, permanent companions (hereinafter “direct next of kin”) provided it responds to the specific circumstances of the case. With regard to such direct next of kin, it is for the State to rebut said presumption.157 129. In all other cases, the Court must analyze if the evidence in the records of the case shows a violation of the right to humane treatment of the alleged victim, regardless of whether he/she is a next of kin of another victim in the case or not. As regards those persons in respect of whom the Court does not presume that the right to humane treatment has been violated because they are not direct next of kin, the Court must assess, for example, whether there is a particularly close relationship between them and the victims in the case that would enable the Court to find that the right to humane treatment has been violated. The Court may also assess whether the alleged victims have been actively involved in seeking justice in the specific case,158 or whether they have suffered as a result of the facts of the case or of subsequent acts or omissions on the part of the State authorities in relation to the incidents.159 130. The Court notes that the representatives have requested that the State be found responsible for the violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of the following direct next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández: Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Kury, father;160 Blanca Fernández, mother;161 Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, daughter,162 and Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, son.163 Therefore, considering the circumstances of the instant case, in principle the Court presumes that the death of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández adversely affected their mental and moral integrity. However, given that the State, based on the findings of the Inter-American Commission in its Report on the Merits,164 opposed any such ruling in relation to this alleged violation, the Court will examine the evidence presented by the representatives. The Court notes that the State did not challenge said evidence. 131. Based on the statements rendered during the course of these proceedings, it is clear that Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Kury, father of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, was significantly affected by her death. Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas “was his right-hand person; she took care of him and his ailment [and] managed his business.”165 Blanca Jeannette Kawas and her father had a very close relationship; she even left the United States of America to provide him with care.166 Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Kury passed away a few months after the death of his daughter.167 132. Also, in relation to Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández’s relationship with her mother, Blanca Fernández, the record shows that the former traveled to the United States of America along with her two children in order to take care of her mother, who was ill.168 Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández subsequently returned to Honduras to take care of her father, but maintained regular contact with her.169 Because of the facts of this case, Mrs. Fernández suffered “due to the feelings of anger and impotence […] and cried inconsolably; to this date her favorite topic of conversation is [her] daughter.”170 133. Furthermore, based on the record, Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas and her mother, Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, had a very close relationship. Ms. Watt-Kawas stated that her mother provided her with financial support for her studies in the United States of America and that “when she [had] some free time she visited her [and] was inspired by her environmental mission and vision.” She stated that she talked with her mother on the telephone “a few days before she died.” Ms. Watt-Kawas “has suffered emotional [t]rauma [as a result] of [her] mother’s violent death” and considers that it has caused “irreparable damage, searing and long-lasting grief.”171 She added that “she feels helpless and constantly stressed out when visit[ing] her family in Honduras” and that she “[is] disappointed at the incompetence displayed by the authorities in a murder case that has received national and international attention.” Currently, Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas is living in Germany and is afraid of returning to Honduras.172 134. Mr. Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, son of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, stated that he “always had a very close relationship” with his mother “and [that] she thoroughly fulfilled her role as mother.” Furthermore, he added that, when she died, he suffered from “feelings of loneliness and abandonment[,] feeling unprotected without the only person who was so close to him” and, therefore, he needed the support of his family to “cope with the overwhelming grief that [he] experienced [...].” Mr. Watt-Kawas stated that his life “underwent a radical, negative, frustrating change, imbued with emotional instability and deep sadness that led [him] to distrust everything and everyone” and that he “feels a sense of impotence and frustration in the face of the absence of competent authorities to determine what happened and why it happened.”173 At the time Blanca Jeannette-Kawas was deprived of her life, her son was seventeen years old.174 135. In addition, the representatives have requested the Court to declare the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the siblings of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández: Jacobo Roberto;175 Jorge Jesús,176 and Carmen Marilena.177 The Court points out that, in accordance with its case law (supra para. 128), the foregoing persons are not considered to be direct next of kin. Therefore, the Court must examine the evidence presented by the representatives to that effect. 136. During the public hearing (supra para. 10), Mr. Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández stated that he arrived at the house of his sister, Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, a few minutes after she died. He said that he saw her “lying on the floor [and that] he tried to pick her up [and] carry her.” As evidenced by the record, he subsequently “led” the investigations initiated by the authorities regarding her death.178 Mr. Kawas-Fernández pointed out that, as a result of the murder, “he no longer [has an] older sister who gave him all her support” and that “[his] life has changed in that he used to be engaged in other activities [and] had to [take over] the management of [his] father’s business,” formerly managed by Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. He mentioned that the possibility of rendering testimony before the Inter-American Court meant “an opportunity for securing justice, the hope that impunity would end [...].” 137. Mr. Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández stated that he had a very close relationship with his sister, Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, that “she was like the head of the family; [that] whenever she c[a]me to Tegucigalpa she would stay at [his] home and vice versa.” Furthermore, he pointed out that “from an early age she was like a mother to [him].” He added that “when his biological mother left for the Unites States, Jeannette, barely eighteen years old, took over [his] care” and that “there was always a special bond between them beyond sibling love and that her personal demeanor and conduct [earned her] the respect and deep appreciation of the family.” Mr. Jorge Jesús Kawas pointed out that his sister’s death “was the end[;] an initial reaction of shock and disbelief which later developed into a profound grief and sorrow at her unjust death.” Furthermore, he stated that the family “[is] afraid […] owing to the [State’s] inability to prosecute and punish those who commit violent crimes.”179 138. As regards Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández, sister of the deceased victim, the record shows that they had a “very good” relationship and that “she always supported [her].”180 In addition, from the statement rendered by Mr. Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández, it is clear that since Blanca Jeannette was the oldest of four children, “at an early age, she had to look after her younger siblings [Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández among them] and to always watch over them [...].” Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández also stated that his sister Carmen Marilena traveled to Honduras from the United States to go to her sister’s funeral.181 The Court points out that the State acknowledged the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of “the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández” (supra para. 7), Mrs. Carmen Marilena among others. 139. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Kury, Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, Jacobo Kawas-Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández’s close family relationship with Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández has been established. Furthermore, the Court considers that the manner and circumstances in which Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was deprived of her life and the inefficiency of the measures adopted to investigate the murder and punish the perpetrators have caused them pain and suffering in addition to a feeling of insecurity, frustration and impotence at the public authorities’ failure to investigate the facts of the case, thus undermining their mental moral integrity (supra para. 117). Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the abovementioned persons. The Court has not found a violation of Article 5(2) of the American Convention, in accordance with its previous decisions on the subject of torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. IX ARTICLE 16(1) (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)182 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) THEREOF 140. The representatives pointed out that “[t]he murder of Jeannette Kawas, as a result of her tireless efforts to protect the environment through the foundation [PROLANSATE], of which she was the President, constituted a deprivation of her right [to] use any means she deem[ed] appropriate to exercise her freedom of association, [...] from the individual perspective of such right.” They added that her murder “must be seen as a violation of the freedom of association from a collective standpoint [insofar as] its impunity had an intimidating effect on the environmental movement in Honduras, especially because her death marks the start of a context of violence against environmental advocates. […] The right of individuals to associate with others for an environmental cause in Honduras may not be freely exercised, and the murder and ensuing impunity in the Kawas case has been a true reflection of that situation.” Furthermore, they alleged that the State, through the Attorney General’s Office, “has accepted that all the theories regarding the incident are related to the Jeannette’s fight as an environmentalist.” 141. The Commission made no reference to the alleged violation of the right of freedom of association. 142. In its answer to the application, the State argued that “both the application and the brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence list the different activities carried out by Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández as well as the organizations to which she belonged; therefore, it is evident that the State [...] never prevented her from freely associating with others, nor did it place any restrictions on such right.” 143. Article 16(1) of the American Convention provides that individuals under the jurisdiction of the States Parties have the right and freedom to associate freely with others, without any interference by the public authorities that could limit or impair the exercise of such right. It relates, therefore, to the right to join with others in lawful common pursuits, without pressure or interference that may alter or impair the nature of such purpose.183 144. In addition to the aforesaid negative obligations, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that freedom of association also “gives rise to positive obligations to prevent attacks on it, to protect those who exercise it, and to investigate violations restricting such freedom.”184 These positive obligations must be enforced, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, if necessary.185 145. In the instant case, the analysis of the potential violation of the right of freedom of association, as alleged by the representatives, must be made in the context of the link between the exercise of said right and the promotion and defense of human rights. In this regard, the Court has established that the States have the duty to provide the necessary means for human rights defenders to conduct their activities freely; to protect them when they are subject to threats in order to ward off any attempt on their life or safety; to refrain from placing restrictions that would hinder the performance of their work, and to conduct serious and effective investigations of any violations against them, thus preventing impunity.186 146. From this perspective, Article 16 of the American Convention also includes the right of individuals to set up and participate freely in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups involved in human rights monitoring, reporting and promotion. Given the important role of human rights defenders in democratic societies,187 the free and full exercise of this right imposes upon the State the duty to create the legal and factual conditions for them to be able to freely perform their task. 147. The State acknowledged that the work of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was performed “in her role as defender of human rights and of environmental and natural resource preservation” and recognized “the many achievements gained through her different activities.” In connection with said acknowledgement, this Court finds it appropriate to point out that the defense of human rights is not limited to civil and political rights, but necessarily involves economic, social and cultural rights monitoring, reporting and education, in accordance with the principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention,188 and the Inter-American Democratic Charter189 and upheld by this Court in its case law.190 In the same vein, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders concluded that the protection accorded to defenders “is not dependent on whether the focus of the work of the defenders […] is on civil and political rights or on economic, social and cultural rights.”191 148. Furthermore, in accordance with the case law of this Court192 and the European Court of Human Rights,193 there is an undeniable link between the protection of the environment and the enjoyment of other human rights. The ways in which the environmental degradation and the adverse effects of the climate change have impaired the effective enjoyment of human rights in the continent has been the subject of discussion by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States194 and the United Nations.195 It should also be noted that a considerable number of States Parties to the American Convention have adopted constitutional provisions which expressly recognize the right to a healthy environment.196 These advances towards the development of human rights in the continent have been incorporated into the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights "Protocol of San Salvador.”197 149. The recognition of the work in defense of the environment and its link to human rights is becoming more prominent across the countries of the region, in which an increasing number of incidents have been reported involving threats and acts of violence against and murders of environmentalists owing to their work.198 150. In the judgment rendered by this Court in the cases of Huilca-Tecse v. Peru and Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, it was held that freedom of association can only be exercised in a situation in which fundamental human rights are fully guaranteed and respected, particularly those related to the life and safety of the individual.199 In this regard, the impairment of the right to life or to humane treatment attributable to the State may, in turn, give rise to a violation of Article 16(1) of the Convention when such violation arises from the victim’s legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of association.200 151. As it has been established (supra paras. 50 to 52), at the time of death, Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was the president of the PROLANSATE foundation, and in that capacity she promoted the establishment of public policies on environmental protection in the department of Atlántida, Honduras, as well as awareness regarding natural resource preservation through education, and reported environmental degradation in the area. From the uncontroverted evidence presented, particularly from the statement rendered by Mr. Rafael Sambulá, former director of the foundation, on March 1, 1995, it is concluded that, before she died, Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández reported “the problems affecting the protected areas” to the relevant authorities and the media[, …] “that individuals were invading the core zone of the [Punta Sal National] Park and [that] others were mucking it out”; the witness also stated that as a result of a complaint filed with the Corporación Hondureña de Desarrollo Forestal (National Corporation for Forestry Development, AFE-COHDEFOR) by the PROLANSATE foundation, “the national authorities […] terminated [a timber extraction] contract.”201 152. In Chapter VII, the Court held that it had been established that at least one agent of the State had been involved in the events that ended the life of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, and that such acts were motivated by Ms. Kawas-Fernández’s work in defense of the environment through the PROLANSATE foundation, especially in retaliation for reporting and opposing the exploitation of natural resources of certain protected areas in the municipality of Tela. It is the Court’s view that her death, evidently, resulted in the deprivation of her right to associate freely with others. 153. As found in other cases,202 it is undeniable that these circumstances have also had an intimidating effect203 on other people who are engaged in the defense of the environment in Honduras or that are related to this type of causes. This intimidating effect is reinforced and exacerbated by the fact that the crime remains unpunished (supra para. 68). 154. Furthermore, in the case sub judice, it has been established that during the decade following the death of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, five people lost their life as a result of their work in defense of natural resources and the environment in Honduras204 (supra para. 69). 155. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to freedom of association provided for in Article 16(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. X Reparations (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 156. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of international obligations which causes damage purports the duty to make adequate reparations.205 Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has adopted decisions in this regard.206 157. Considering the partial acknowledgment of liability made by the State, the considerations on such acknowledgment and the violations to the American Convention declared in the previous chapters, in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s judicial precedents with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,207 the Court will proceed to analyze the demands presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the allegations of the State, in order to determine the measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. A) Injured Party 158. The representatives requested the Court to consider Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández as beneficiary of the right to reparation in her capacity as direct victim of the violations alleged in the instant case. Furthermore, they identified as victims and beneficiaries of the reparations “[her] closest relatives, due to the violations they suffered throughout the years,” to wit: Blanca Fernández, mother; Jacobo Kawas-Cury, deceased father; Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, son; Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, daughter; Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández, sister; Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández, brother, and Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández, brother. Similarly, the Commission identified the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, including Mr. James Gordon Watt (alleged husband), as beneficiaries of the requested reparations. 159. The State did not file any challenge to the list of beneficiaries proposed by the representatives and the Commission, but “f[ound] the relationships […] should be proven through the appropriate documents” (supra para. 28). In that regard, the State accepted “to provide reparation to the individuals to be designated in the appropriate Judgment as entitled to reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage”. 160. This Court restated that those individuals who have been declared victims of violations of any of the rights enshrined in the Convention will be deemed injured parties (supra para. 27). Consequently, based on the determinations made in the preceding paragraphs, the Court finds that the individuals listed below must be considered “injured parties”: Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, Jacobo Kawas-Cury, Blanca Fernández, Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández. The aforementioned individuals will be the beneficiaries of the reparations to be awarded by the Tribunal. 161. Mr. James Gordon Watt cannot be considered an injured party in the instant case because he has not been declared victim of a violation of any right enshrined in the Convention (supra para. 119). B) Compensation 1) Pecuniary damage 162. In its judicial precedents, the Court has developed the concept of pecuniary damage and the situations in which it must be redressed.208 163. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order the State to “provide full reparation to the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, including […] the pecuniary […] aspect, as a result of the human rights violations suffered”. In this sense, the Inter-American Commission requested payment of a compensation for consequential damage and loss of earnings. The representatives also requested compensations for such items. 164. Below, the Court will establish the compensations to be paid for this item based on the violations recognized in the instant Judgment, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the evidence submitted by the parties and their allegations. 1.i) “Consequential damage” 165. The Commission held that “the relatives of the victim made significant economic efforts to seek justice in domestic courts and to overcome the physical, psychological and moral trauma sustained as a result of the acts of the State of Honduras". Therefore, it requested the Court to establish, on equitable basis, the amount of the appropriate compensation. 166. Furthermore, the representatives requested payment of a compensation for any expenses incurred as a result of the violations, to wit: Blanca Fernández, Jaime Alejandro and Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, and Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández, “who were in the United States at the time of the murder [and] were forced to travel immediately to Honduras, incurring a series of expenses in transportation, accommodation and food[, and that even though] the family does not have the corresponding vouchers, those expenses are estimated in the approximate amount of eight thousand United States dollars”. Furthermore, the representatives requested payment of the expenses incurred by Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández and “the family”, in order to give “proper burial to the victim”, and any expenses personally incurred by the latter for the purposes of investigating the death of his sister. The representatives requested the Court to establish the amount of the compensation for this item, on an equitable basis. 167. The State filed no specific allegation on this matter. 168. The various statements rendered during the proceedings in the instant case show that Mrs. Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, Mrs. Blanca Fernández and Mrs. Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández were in the United States of America at the time Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was deprived of her life.209 That notwithstanding, contrary to the allegations of the representatives and in accordance with his own statement, Mr. Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas was in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, at that time.210 The Court finds it reasonable to believe that such individuals incurred certain expenses to travel to the city of Tela, Honduras, in order to attend the funeral of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. In the case of her children Selsa Damaris and Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, such expenses were covered, according to their statements, by “[their] grandfather [and] their mother’s siblings.”211 169. Moreover, the body of evidence shows that the members of the family of the Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández contributed various economic and physical resources, and logistic support to promote the investigation initiated by the authorities.212 In that regard, Mr. Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández and Mr. Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas agreed on their statements upon stating that “[the] family acted […] in support of the investigations […] under the instructions of […] Jacobo [Kawas-Fernández]”.213 Also, Mr. Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández acknowledged that “[a]ll expenses incurred upon the investigation were borne by [his] brother Jacobo, who covered such expenses with the income obtained from [his] father’s real estate business”.214 Furthermore, he stated that the estimated expenses incurred totaled “six thousand United States dollars for food, fuel, accommodation and traveling, both for the different investigation teams that worked on the case and the various individuals who provided information on the case […]”.215 As regards the possible disbursement of funds on this account (supra para. 113), it has been proven in the records that in November 2003, the Coordinator of the Attorney General’s Office sent a letter to the hearing Judge, stating that “[t]he agents initiated their work in the afternoon [on October 29, 2003], but first they warned the Prosecutor’s Office that had to coordinate their stay in the city because they had not been assigned traveling expenses, [and], for that reason, Mr. Jacobo Kawas [...] was contacted, and he offered an apartment and HNL 1,000.00 for them to work.”216 The Court finds that the family of the Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández effectively incurred certain expenses as detailed above, which were borne directly by Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández. 170. Furthermore, it has been stated in the records that Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Cury, father of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, and her siblings, made certain disbursements as a result of her funeral.217 171. Based on the considerations above, the Court establishes, on an equitable basis, the following amounts for the items specified below: USD$ 600.00 (six hundred United States dollars) to the benefit of Mrs. Blanca Fernández for traveling expenses to attend her daughter’s funeral, and USD$ 600.00 (six hundred United States dollars) to the benefit of Mrs. Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández for the same purpose. 172. Moreover, the Court establishes, on an equitable basis, the amount of USD$ 800.00 (eight hundred United States dollars) for traveling expenses to attend the funeral of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández to her children Selsa Damaris and Jaime Alejandro, and USD$ 300.00 (three hundred United States dollars) for expenses incurred in the funeral of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. Such amounts must be delivered to Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández, who will, in turn, deliver the appropriate amounts to the relatives specified in the Judgment who timely incurred the aforementioned expenses. In accordance with the precedents of this Court,218 the amount corresponding to Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Cury –who passed away- must be distributed equally to his children, taking into account that at the time of his death he was separated from Mrs. Blanca Fernández.219 173. Lastly, the Court establishes, on an equitable basis, the amount of USD$ 1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars) to the benefit of Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández, for the expenses incurred upon the investigation of the events in the instant case. 1.ii) Loss of earnings 174. The Commission requested the Court to establish, on an equitable basis, the amount of the compensation payable for “loss of profits”. 175. The representatives held that Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández had a professional diploma in Commerce and Accounting (“Perito Mercantil y Contador Público”), but was mainly involved in the management of the family’s businesses” and that at the time of her death she was “49 years old”. Furthermore, the representatives stated that “[i]n accordance with the report issued by the National Statistics Institute of Honduras (Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Honduras), life expectancy for women upon birth in this country can be established at 75.3 years […], thus leading to infer that, in ordinary conditions, Mrs. Kawas could have lived an average of 26 years more”. Furthermore, the representatives stated that Mrs. Kawas “earned a monthly salary of HNL 20.000, equivalent to USD$ 1.050.00”. Additionally, the representatives stated that “the legislation of Honduras contemplates two additional monthly salaries per year […] as a means for social compensation” pursuant to legal terms and conditions. Based on the above, the representatives requested that the State be ordered to provide compensation to the victim in the amount of “USD$ 303,849.00 [three hundred three thousand, eight hundred forty-nine United States dollars]”, obtained from multiplying the aforementioned monthly amount and two additional monthly salaries by the 26-year life expectancy remainder, plus a 6% interest for loss of earnings, less 25% for expenses that the victim would have incurred had she been alive; the "total amount that [should] be paid by the State of Honduras to the relatives of the victim as compensation for loss of earnings”. 176. For the purposes of proving the level of income of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, the State submitted as documentary evidence her annual income tax return for the year 1994,220 the year immediately preceding that of her death, “in order for the […] Court to have sufficient evidence to establish the appropriate pecuniary damage”. The representatives did not object to the validity or authenticity of such evidence. 177. The Court finds that the aforementioned annual income tax return reflects annual income for Mrs. Kawas-Fernández in the amount of HNL 52,000.00 (fifty-two thousand), i.e. approximately HNL 4333.33 (four thousand three hundred and thirty-three and thirty-three cents) per month. 178. Based on the considerations above, and given the time elapsed since Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was deprived of her life and her probable life expectancy, the Court orders the State to pay, on an equitable basis, the amount of USD$ 70,000.00 [seventy thousand United States dollars], which, pursuant to applicable judicial precedents (supra para. 162), should be distributed equally to her children. 2) Non-pecuniary damage 179. Based on its precedents, the Court has established various methods to provide for reparation for non-pecuniary damage sustained.221 180. The Commission requested the Court to establish, on an equitable basis, the amount of the compensation to be paid for non-pecuniary damage as a result of the "suffering endured by the relatives of the victim due to lack of an efficient investigation of the events and adequate punishment of those responsible, among other things”. 181. Furthermore, the representatives indicated that “it is evident that the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández suffered considerably as a result of her death”. In that regard, they requested the Court to establish compensation considering “the pain caused given the violent and sudden nature of the victim's death [;] [as] this event took place while most of her relatives [were] out of Honduras[;] and that [t]he anguish feeling increased as result of the frustration and defenselessness for having her murder go unpunished”. The representatives also requested the Court to consider that her death originated in her capacity as environmental activist”. 182. The State did not submit specific allegations in that regard. 183. In Chapters VII and VIII of this Judgment, the Court concluded that the manner and circumstances in which Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was murdered, and failure by Government authorities to investigate that event as well as the inefficacy of the measures adopted to clarify the events and, if applicable, punish those responsible therefor, have affected the moral and psychological health of the late Jacobo Kawas-Cury, Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris and Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas-Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas-Fernández and Carmen Marilena Kawas-Fernández, all of them relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. 184. Judgments whereby violations of rights are acknowledged, pursuant to repeated international precedents, constitute in and of themselves a form of reparation.222 That notwithstanding, given the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds that it is appropriate to order payment of a compensation, assessed on an equitable basis, for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, who are considered victims of violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (supra paras. 117 to 119 and 131 to 139). Based on the considerations above, the Court orders the State to pay the amount of USD$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to the benefit of each of Selsa Damaris and Jaime Alejandro Kawas-Fernández; the amount of USD$ 20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) to the benefit of Mrs. Blanca Fernández and Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Kury, each; USD$ 10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to the benefit of Jacobo Kawas-Fernández and, the amount of USD$ 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to the benefit of Mrs. Carmen Marilena and Mr. Jorge Jesús, both bearing the surname Kawas-Fernández, each. The amount corresponding to Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Kury must be paid in equal parts to his children. 185. Moreover, as previously held by the Court,223 in cases such as the instant case, the non-pecuniary damage inflicted upon the victim is evident. In this regard, and even though no request has been made to this effect by the Commission or the representatives, the Court has decided to order the State to pay compensation in the amount of USD$ 50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) on account of the moral damage sustained by Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. Said amount shall be paid in full and in equal parts to the victim’s children Selsa Damaris and Jaime Alejandro Watt-Kawas. * * *
* * *
187. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order the State: a) to expeditiously conduct a full, impartial and effective judicial investigation intended to establish the circumstances in which Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was killed, identify all persons involved in her death at the various decision-making and execution stages, and impose the appropriate punishment; and b) to expeditiously conduct a full, impartial and effective judicial investigation into the obstructions of justice that took place in the proceeding concerning the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández. The Commission argued that the State is required to comply with its obligations to “investigate the facts and make known those which can be sufficiently established; […] prosecute and punish those responsible therefor; [and] remove from the security forces anyone who has been proven to have committed, ordered or tolerated such abuses […].” In its final written arguments, the Commission put emphasis on “the State’s obligation to remove all such factual and legal obstacles as may hinder the exhaustive judicial clarification of the human rights violations committed in the instant case.” 188. The representatives requested the Court to order the State to “[i]nvestigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for planning and carrying out the execution of Jeannette Kawas, as well as those who committed irregularities and omissions in the relevant judicial proceeding, thus causing the violations in this case to remain unpunished.” In this regard, they noted that “[i]t is evident that being an environmentalist in Honduras entails high risk. An environmentalist’s work becomes increasingly dangerous every day. The impunity surrounding the case of Kawas opened the door to a context of violence targeting environmentalists, with the State failing to effectively take preventive and investigative measures, in addition to the judicial officers’ failure to act on their own motion.” The representatives requested the Court that “[the victims] be allowed full access and recognized the standing to act at all procedural stages, in accordance with domestic law and the American Convention[,] [that the] outcome of the investigation [be] made publicly known and widely publicized in order that it is known by the Honduran society, [and that] the State of Honduras be ordered to refrain from resorting to procedural obstacles such as amnesty, the statute of limitations or any other mechanism intended to promote the exclusion of liability of those involved in the facts.” 189. In Chapter VII of this Judgment, the Court established that about 14 years have elapsed since Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was deprived of her life. It was further established that the body of evidence contains sufficient elements indicating that state agents were involved in these events. The measures taken domestically in this regard have not amounted to an effective recourse to guarantee true access to justice for the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández within a reasonable period of time, including the clarification of the facts of her murder, the investigation of the acts of obstruction, and, as the case may be, the punishment of all persons responsible and reparation of the violations (supra paras. 117 and 118). 190. The Court repeats that the State is required to fight such impunity by all means available, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims -who have a right to know the truth of the facts- completely defenseless.224 The acknowledgment and exercise of the right to know the truth in a specific situation represent a means of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to know the truth creates in the victims a legitimate expectation that must be satisfied by the State.225 The guarantee obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention entails the duty of the States Parties to the Convention to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public authority is exercised in a manner such that they may ensure, in legal terms, the free and full exercise of human rights.226 191. Considering the above, as well as the Court’s case law,227 the Court orders that the State is to effectively conduct the criminal proceedings that are currently pending in connection with both the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas and the hindering of the proper investigation thereof, as well as such other proceedings as may be instituted to establish responsibility for the facts of the instant case, and effectively enforce the legally-prescribed consequences. The State must institute and complete the relevant investigations and proceedings within a reasonable period of time, to establish the truth of the facts. 192. The Court notes that, in compliance with its obligation to investigate and, if appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts, the State must remove all factual and legal obstacles hindering their proper investigation, and use all means available to expedite such investigation and the relevant proceedings with a view to preventing the recurrence of facts such as those of the instant case. 193. Moreover, it has been established that various witnesses related to the events of the instant case have been threatened, and that one such witness is a beneficiary of the provisional measures ordered by this Court in the course of the proceeding before it (supra paras. 15 and 16). Accordingly, based on the body of evidence in this case, the State must apply its domestic law to provide effective protection to any witnesses of the events related to the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and offer guarantees to any person who may wish to testify. The State must guarantee the enforcement of any and all orders issued by a competent authority restricting or limiting any contact between said witnesses and the parties who are likely to be responsible for the facts and take the necessary measures should such orders not be observed. Also, the State must, in a fully diligent manner and within a reasonable period of time, process and fully deal with any complaint of coercion, intimidation or threats made by the witnesses in the domestic proceedings and take all legally prescribed measures for their investigation. Additionally, as established in this Judgment, the State must guarantee that the prosecutors and other officers in charge of the investigation and proceeding concerning the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández have adequate resources, including, without limitation, economic and logistic resources, and the required protection to move the investigation of and proceeding concerning the facts of the instant case forward. 194. Based on the Court’s case law,228 the State must ensure that the victims are given full access and recognized the standing to act at all stages of such domestic investigations and proceedings, such that they are allowed to submit claims, receive information, provide evidence, make arguments and, basically, assert and enforce their interests. The goal of such involvement must be to have access to justice, to know the truth of the facts and to secure just reparation. Additionally, the outcome of the proceeding must be publicized in order that the Honduran society may be made aware of the judicial determination of the facts and the parties responsible therefore in the instant case.229 195. Considering the above, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State, pursuant to paragraph 226 of this Judgment, to provide specific information on the following issues: a) the status of the criminal files that are currently open concerning the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and the obstruction of the related investigations; b) the measures adopted to provide the agents in charge of the investigation with the necessary resources to carry out their work, as well as such measures of protection as may be ordered, if any; c) the measures of protection ordered for the benefit of the witnesses, and d) any substantive progress made in the relevant investigations and proceedings. D) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 196. In this regard, the State claimed it would “comply with such measures as the Honorable Court may order in this regard.” 1) Publication of the relevant parts of this Judgment 197. The Commission requested the Court to order the State “to publish the judgment to be rendered by the Court in the printed and broadcast media.” 198. Furthermore, the representatives requested the Court “the publication of the whole Judgment both in the Official Gazette and in two newspapers of major circulation in Honduras […], once in each.” 199. As ordered in previous cases,230 the State shall make a one-time publication, in the Official Gazette and in another major nationwide circulation newspaper, of paragraphs 1 to 8; 17 to 35; 45 to 155; and 189 to 195 of this Judgment, footnotes excluded, and the operative section of this Judgment. Such publication shall be made within six months from notice of this Judgment. 2) Public acknowledgment of international responsibility 200. The Commission requested that the Court order the State “[to hold] a ceremony of public acknowledgement of its international responsibility for the damage caused and violations committed, in a decent and significant manner as required by the goal of reparations, in consultation with the victim’s next of kin and their representatives.” 201. Moreover, the representatives requested the Court to order the State “to carry out a public acknowledgment of responsibility […] at which the State’s highest authority will apologize not only to the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández but also to the next of kin of all environmentalists who suffered human rights violations subsequently to the killing of Kawas.” Moreover, they requested that such acknowledgment be made “at a highly busy site in the city of Tela, [and be] covered [by] the main national media, [with] the members of the Kawas family being given a key role, should they so desire.” In addition, the representatives asked that “the State of Honduras prepar[e] a written document acknowledging its international responsibility and [offering its] apologies to the Kawas family […] Such document is to be a full page long and published in the printed medium with the largest national circulation.” 202. The Court has already stated in this Judgment that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility constitutes a positive contribution to this proceeding and to the application of the principles that inspire the American Convention (supra para. 32). However, in order for it to be fully effective, it is the Court’s view that the State must carry out a public acknowledgment of responsibility concerning the facts of the instant case, to honor the memory of Mrs. Blanca Jannette Kawas-Fernández. During such public acknowledgment, reference must be made to the human rights violations established in this Judgment. Also, the acknowledgment shall be made via a public ceremony to be attended by State authorities. The State shall guarantee the participation of those next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández who have also been declared victims by this Court and may so desire. The specifics of such public ceremony must be subject to prior and proper consultation with the next of kin of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández. The State shall have a period of one year to comply with this obligation. 203. As regards the representatives’ request that the State prepare a written document acknowledging its international responsibility and apologizing to the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, and to have such document published, the Court finds that the publication of this Judgment (supra para. 199) and the public ceremony acknowledging responsibility (supra para. 202) are sufficient for such purposes. 3) Construction of a monument and mounting of signs at the national park 204. The representatives requested the Court to order the State to “[c]reate a monument in memoriam of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and to mount signs at the National Park named after her.” In this regard, they argued that “[the] monument’s design must be in line with its environmental context and [created] by Mr. Jaime Kawas -the son of Jeannette Kawas-, who is an architect[;] the Ministry of the Environment and another equal-level official, as well as the City’s local authorities […] including top-level police authorities […] shall take part [i]n the unveiling ceremony.” Likewise, they asked the Court to “order the State to mount signs [at the National Park,] clearly identifying the correct name of the park and explaining the history of such name, so that visitors may learn the facts surrounding the creation of the Park.” 205. In this regard, the Court notes that while the instant case was being processed before the Inter-American Commission, the State repeated that “it agreed on the construction of the requested monument at the site indicated by the representatives and [the victim’s next of kin] within the land […] of the Blanca Jeannette-Kawas-Fernández National Park [and that] the funds w[ould] be provided by the State directly to such individual or legal entity as the representatives may appoint, […] in line with the funding estimate and design already submitted by engineer Jaime Watt-Kawas, [the son of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández].” Also, the State repeated “its undertaking to mount signs at the Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández National Park […].”231 206. The Court notes that the measures requested by the representatives seek to keep the memory of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández alive and prevent the future recurrence of facts such as those of the instant case.232 Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to construct a memorial monument for the victim as well as to mount signs at the national park named after her, as requested by the representatives. The Court stresses that such signs shall note the fact that the victim was killed defending the environment and, in particular, such national park. The monument unveiling ceremony shall be attended by State authorities. Also, the State shall guarantee the participation of the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández who were also declared victims by this Court who may so desire. Both obligations are to be complied with in a period of two years as from the date of notice of this Judgment. 4) Psychological care 207. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to “adopt rehabilitation measures for the benefit of the victim’s next of kin, [which measures] must necessarily include psychological and medical rehabilitation measures.” 208. Moreover, the representatives stated that “[t]here is no denying the profound pain that the execution of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas has caused to her next of kin, in addition to the fact that no justice has been served in over thirteen years.” Accordingly, they asked that the Court order the State “to provide free-of-charge psychological care to such next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas who may so request[, …] [which] measure shall include the cost of any medication prescribed, such that the next of kin […] are not forced to incur further monetary costs [and that such] care sh[all] be personalized and fit the needs of each beneficiary.” 209. Based on the damage sustained by the next of kin of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, as established in Chapter VIII of this Judgment, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to immediately provide free-of-charge adequate and effective psychological and/or psychiatric care, via its specialized health institutions, to such of the next of kin the Court has declared victims as may so request. Such treatment must be provided by personnel and institutions specialized in the disorders and illnesses suffered by such people as a result of the facts of this case. Said treatment is to begin when the beneficiaries so request; the beneficiaries shall have a period of two years to seek the treatment as from the date of notice of this Judgment. Furthermore, said treatment is to be provided for as long as necessary and shall include the supply of any medication which may be required; it shall also account for the sufferings of each beneficiary in connection with the facts of the instant case, as determined through a personal evaluation. The State shall report on such steps and on the actual provision of treatment as established in paragraph 226 infra. 5) Other reparations sought 210. The Commission requested the Court to order Honduras “to adopt, as a priority measure, a policy intended to root out violence against natural resources advocates, including preventive and protective measures,” and “to adopt a public policy to fight impunity in cases of violations of the human rights of human rights advocates.” 211. In turn, the representatives asked the Court to call upon the State to implement a “public policy intended to protect human rights advocates, including, among other things, ‘[e]ducation and publicity activities for all State agents, society in general and the media, to create awareness in society regarding the importance and value of the work of human rights advocates[;]’ ‘[e]ffective measures to protect the life and physical integrity of those human rights advocates who have been threatened,’ [and…] ‘fight against impunity in connection with violations of the human rights of human rights advocates.’” 212. It has been established in this Judgment that the murder of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández was caused by her work as an environmentalist (supra para. 98). It has also been mentioned that, later on, other environmentalists were the targets of threats and attacks or even killed as well (supra para. 69). In the course of the instant case, the State acknowledged the complex situation of those who devote themselves to defending the environment in that country (supra para. 98). 213. The Court appreciates the organization of the Group for the Investigation of Environmental Activists’ Deaths (“Grupo de Investigación para las Muertes de Ambientalistas”), attached to the Secretary of State, Security Office, in response to the acts of violence perpetrated against that group (supra para. 70). In that regard, it reiterates that the threats and attempts against the integrity and life of human right supporters and impunity in this type of events are particularly serious in a democratic society. In accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State has a duty to adopt legislative, administrative and judicial measures, or to fulfill those already in place, guaranteeing the free performance of environmental advocacy activities; the instant protection of environmental activists facing danger or threats as a result of their work; and the instant, responsible and effective investigation of any acts endangering the life or integrity of environmentalists on account of their work. 214. In this vein, and as a way to contribute to avoiding the recurrence of facts such as those of the instant case, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to carry out a national campaign to create awareness and sensitivity regarding the importance of environmentalists’ work in Honduras and their contribution to the protection of human rights, targeting security officials, agents of the justice system and the general population. For such purpose, the State shall have a period not to exceed two years as from the date of notice of this Judgment. 215. For such purpose, it shall report to the Court, in the terms of paragraph 226 infra, on the steps taken for this and the progress, if any, made in its execution. E) Costs and Expenses 216. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court “to order the State of Honduras to pay such necessary and reasonable costs and expenses as may be duly proven to have been incurred so far or in the future in the processing of this case domestically and before the Inter-American System of Human Rights.” 217. Initially, the representatives requested “[p]ayment to the next of kin of Mrs. Jeannette Kawas and the organizations involved in the proceedings (CEJIL and ERIC), as appropriate, of the costs and expenses incurred on account of the domestic proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission and this […] Court.” However, later on they reported that “ERIC [had] waive[d] such right.”233 As regards the expenses incurred by CEJIL in its capacity as a representative, the amount sought is “USD$ 11,546.77” [eleven thousand five hundred and forty-six United States dollars and seventy-seven cents], on account of traveling, postal, telephone, and fax expenses and supplies. Likewise, in their brief containing pleadings and motions, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to bear “future expenses” relating to the remaining procedures in the processing of this case before the Court; accordingly, in their final written arguments they requested payment of the expenses incurred on account of their trip to the City of Mexico to attend the public hearing of the instant case, as well as accommodation expenses and per diem for the attorneys, one expert witness, two witnesses and Mrs. Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, the daughter of the deceased victim. The total amount sought by the representatives on account of such expenses equals USD$ 8,465.48 [eight thousand four hundred and sixty-five United States dollars and forty-eight cents]. The total expenses requested by the representatives amount to USD$ 20,012.25 (twenty thousand twelve United States dollars and twenty-five cents). The representative specifically noted that “it has acted as representative of the victim[s] […] since the initial petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission in January 2003.” 218. In its answer to the application, the State agreed to pay “such necessary and reasonable [costs and expenses] as may be duly proven to have been incurred so far or in the future in the processing of this case domestically and before the Inter-American Human Rights System.” 219. Based on the vouchers for expenditures provided by the representatives, the Court notes that some of them bear no connection to the instant case,234 with others relating not exclusively to expenses incurred in relation to this case.235 The Court verifies that, considering the foregoing, the expenditures proven by the representatives total US $15,695.00 [fifteen thousand six hundred and ninety-five United States dollars], related to traveling and commuting expenses to: the Inter-American Commission, in connection with the filing of the application, hearing and proceedings in the instant case; Honduras, in connection with various steps in the processing of this case; and the city of Mexico, to attend the hearing held before the Court in the instant case (supra para. 9). The Court considers it reasonable to add the amount corresponding to the proportional expenditures made not exclusively for the processing of the instant case. 220. Accordingly, the Court has decided to equitably set at US $19,000.00 [nineteen thousand United States dollars] the amount due on account of expenses incurred during the processing of this case before the organs of the Inter-American System. Such amount shall be paid to Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández, who shall turn over the appropriate amounts to the representatives. Such amount is inclusive of future expenses which the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández may incur domestically or at the stage of monitoring compliance with this Judgment. The State shall pay this amount due on account of costs and expenses within a one-year period as from the date of notice of this Judgment. F) Method of compliance with ordered payments 221. The payment of the compensations set forth herein will be made directly to the individuals specified in this Judgment (supra paras. 171 to 173, 178, 184 and 185). As regards the reimbursement of costs and expenses, payment will be made directly to Mr. Jacobo Kawas-Fernández, in accordance with the provisions of this Judgment (supra para. 220). In the case of the beneficiaries who die before receiving the corresponding compensation, payment thereof will be made to their successors, pursuant to applicable domestic law. 222. The State must fulfill its obligations through payment in United States dollars or an equivalent amount in the legal tender of Honduras, applying to that effect the exchange rate in force in the market of New York, United States of America, on the day prior to the date of payment. 223. If due to reasons attributable to the beneficiary or its successors, respectively, it is not possible for the latter to receive such payment within the specified term, the State shall deposit the corresponding amounts to their name in an account or through a certificate of deposit with a financial institution from Honduras, in United States dollars and subject to the most favorable financial conditions allowed by bank and legal practice. If after 10 years such compensation has not been claimed, the corresponding amounts will be returned to the State plus any interest accrued. 224. The amounts granted by way of compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses through this Judgment must be delivered to the individuals specified above (supra para. 221) in full in accordance with the provisions of this Judgment, subject to no reduction as a result of potential tax burdens. 225. In the event of failure by the State to make such payment, the State shall pay interest on the pertaining amount, calculated on the basis of the default bank interest in force in Honduras. 226. Pursuant to its common practice, the Court reserves its right under its powers and Article 65 of the American Convention to supervise full compliance with this Judgment. The case will be deemed closed once the State has fully honored the orders contained in this Judgment. Within a term of one year following notice of this Judgment, the State shall submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with this Judgment. Directory: docs -> casos -> articulos docs -> Observational Assessment of Teaching Practices Teaching Assessment Initiative Proposal Submitted to The Teachers for a New Era project docs -> Traditional British values docs -> From Warfighters to Crimefighters: The Origins of Domestic Police Militarization docs -> Borzoi Club of America Register of Merit Program I. What is a Register Of Merit docs -> Protecting the rights of the child in the context of migration docs -> United Nations E/C. 12/Esp/5 docs -> 9th May 1950 the schuman declaration docs -> Getting To Outcomes® in Services for Homeless Veterans 10 Steps for Achieving Accountability articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights articulos -> Inter-american court of human rights Download 0.56 Mb. Share with your friends:
|